Children's Susceptibility to Television Advertising: A Behavioral Test of Cognition and Attitude

137 Pages·2017·3.23 MB·English

by  John R. Rossiter

UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff PPeennnnssyyllvvaanniiaa
SScchhoollaarrllyyCCoommmmoonnss
Dissertations (ASC) Annenberg School for Communication
1974
CChhiillddrreenn''ss SSuusscceeppttiibbiilliittyy ttoo TTeelleevviissiioonn AAddvveerrttiissiinngg:: AA BBeehhaavviioorraall
TTeesstt ooff CCooggnniittiioonn aanndd AAttttiittuuddee
John R. Rossiter
University of Pennsylvania
Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations_asc
Part of the Communication Commons
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Rossiter, John R., "Children's Susceptibility to Television Advertising: A Behavioral Test of Cognition and
Attitude" (1974). Dissertations (ASC). 21.
https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations_asc/21
This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations_asc/21
For more information, please contact [email protected].
CChhiillddrreenn''ss SSuusscceeppttiibbiilliittyy ttoo TTeelleevviissiioonn AAddvveerrttiissiinngg:: AA BBeehhaavviioorraall TTeesstt ooff CCooggnniittiioonn
aanndd AAttttiittuuddee
AAbbssttrraacctt
Television's alleged effects on children have been the object of considerable debate since the early
1950's. The effects of television commercials, however, have been the focus of only a handful of studies.
According to recent FCC figures, television commercials now comprise 20 percent--12 minutes or more
per hour--of television broadcast content (Johnson, 1973). Earlier figures reported by Steiner (1963)
placed commercials as the third largest content category on television, following movies and comedy-
variety, but ahead of action dramas and eight other programming categories. Although content emphasis
may have changed over the decade, e.g. an increase in action dramas, advertising is still a paramount
content category occupying one-fifth of air time. At today's viewing levels, this means the average child is
exposed to approximately 100 television commercials per day (Action for Children's Television, 1971).
DDeeggrreeee TTyyppee
Dissertation
DDeeggrreeee NNaammee
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)
DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt
Communication
FFiirrsstt AAddvviissoorr
Larry Gross
SSuubbjjeecctt CCaatteeggoorriieess
Communication
This dissertation is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/dissertations_asc/21
CHILDREN'S SUSCEPTIBILITY TO TELEVISION ADVERTISING:
A BEHAVIORAL TEST OF COGNITION AND ATTITUDE
John R_ Rossiter
A DISSERTATION
in
communications
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
of the University of Pennsylvania in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy_
1974
Graduate Group Chairman
C1BRARY
THE ANNENBERG SCHOOD
OF COMMUNiCATIONS
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
3620 WALNUT STREET C-5
PHILADELPHIA, PA. 19174
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Like most research efforts of this nature, the present study re
flects the individual and collective contributions of a number of
people The members of my doctoral committee aided in many capacities.
a
Apart from a strong general indebtedness for their guidance and advice,
most important to me were their personal contributions in the following
respects. My principal advisor, Dr. Larry Gross, stimulated the origin
al research inquiry with his inventive perspectives on attribution
theory and cognition. The present model evolved directly from his sem
inars. Consequently, Dr. Gross inherited the tedious job of having to
evaluate the inevitable nearly versions" of the model, as well as the
ego-involving job of underwriting the efforts of yet another graduate
student. His own efforts and unflagging interest and enthusiasm were,
and are, nothing short of admirable. Dr. Charles wright, Chairman of
the Doctoral Group at the Annenberg School, ensured that I received a
thorough and necessary education in the sociological aspects of mass
communication theory_ He helped to correct a number of my personal
biases by providing a much broader ideational input, and the disserta
tion itself benefitted considerably from Dr. Wright's keen attention
and constructive suggestions concerning the theoretical arguments. To
the third Annenberg member of my committee, Dr. Klaus Krippendorff, I
am most indebted for the opportunity of exposure to some brilliant,
specialized teaching. However, his suggestions are probably the least
well incorporated in the present endeavor and for this I apologize and
take full responsibility. Dr. Thomas Robertson, of the Wharton School,
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS/CONT.
actualized the study by allowing me to participate in a major research
project on children and media under his supervision. His advice and
personal encouragement throughout are deeply appreciated.
My wife, Helen, not only typed everything but, much more importantly,
created the type of home environment and continued support necessary for
accomplishment. I would also like to express my thanks to the coders,
Ric Hammitt, Steve Race, and Barbara Slovak; to the dedicated team of
interviewers; to the school principals and teachers for their coopera
tion; and, of course, to the children.
iii
INDEX
Anneriberg School of Communications, 3
Ache1poh1, C., III
Ackers, R., III
Action for Children's Television, Inc., I, 14
Ajzen, I., 16
Aronfreed, J., 31
Attitude, 2, 4, 6-7, 10, 12, 15-18, 24-26, 31-32, 37, 43-47, 53-67,
78-87, 90, 93-103, 105-109, Ill, 116-118
Bandura, A., 32
Banks, S., 101
Ba11achey, E.L., 15
Bauer, R.A., 13, 94-95, 100
Bechtel, R.B., III
Behavioral effects, 1-4, 6, 37-43, 45-47, 67-86, 88-103, 117-118
Bent, D.H., 113
Blatt, J., 13
Block, J., 104, 110
Bower, R.T., 35
Brentano, J., 15
Broadcast Advertisers Reports, 40-41
Bruner, J.8., 16, 96
Choate, R.B., 1, 90
Chuzmir, S.F., 1
Cognition, 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10, 12-26, 43-67, 78-87, 91-102, 105-111,
116-ll8
Cognition-attitude model:
behavioral test, 4, 37-43, 78-102, 105, 116-118
6~7,
predictor variables, 4, 6-7, 26-37, 43-45, 57-67, 105, 111-112
reliability, 17-18, 104-110
theoretical basis, 4, 6, 12-26, 44-45, 47, 53-57, 78-87, 91-102,
117-ll8
validity, 48-53, 79-81, 84-87, 94, 100, 110-111
Cooley, w.W., 113
Correlation procedures:
canonical correlation, 45, 48-49, 62-63, 113-115
Kendall's tau coefficient, 115-116
Crutchfield, R.S., 15
Educational and artistic play items, 38-43, 76-78, 91
E1konin, D.B., 101
Federal Trade Commission, 14
Fishbein, M., 15-16
Flavell, J.H., 13, 29
Flowerman, S.H., 3:7
Forkan, J.P., 102
Frideres, J.5., 91
iv
INDEX/CaNT.
Gerbner, G., 3, 102
Gerwitz, J.L., 31
Green, P.E., 113, 115
Greenfield, P.M., 16
Greyser, S.A., 13
Gross, L., 3, 92, 112, 116
Guilford, J.P., 12, 15, 104
Harvard University, 1, 16
Hess, RooD., 31
Holsti, O.R., 104, 110
Hovland, C.I., 97, 104, 116
Hull, C. H., 113
Hyman, H.H., 31
Information sources, 4, 38, 42-43, 46-47, 74-76, 88
Interview methodology, 9-11, 16-17, 24
James, W., 15
Johnson, N., 1
Katz, E., 62, 116
Kendall, M.G., 115
Klapper, J.T., 3, 93-95, 100
Krech, D., 15-16, 96
Krippendorff, K., 104, 109-111
Lazarsfeld, P.F .. , 3, 62, 102, 116
Levine, R.A. , 32
Levinson, D. , 85, 111
Lohnes, P.oF .. , 113
Lyle, J. , 35, 76, 85
Lumsdaine, A.A., 97, 104
Maccoby, E.E., 32
Maturation, 2, 4, 6, 27-30, 34, 43-46, 48-58, 68-70, 76-78, 84-89,
92-93, 100-101, 104-105, 116
McCandless, B.R., 31-33, 37
McGuire, W.J., 15, 96-100
Mead, G. H., 13
Merton, RooK., 3, 116
Morris, NooS., 14
Murphy, J.P., 92
Nie, N.H., 113
Olver, R.R., 16
v
INDEX/CONT.
Panel survey design, 5-7, 38, 67-68, 104, 116-118
Parental control, 4, 31-33, 59-60, 85-86, 100-102
Parental education level, 32-33, 36, 43-45, 53-54, 58-61, 63-66,
87, 105, 112
Parent-child interaction, 30-33, 35-36, 43-45, 58-61, 62-64, 105, 112
Parker, E.B., 76, 85
Peer influence, 4, 30-33, 36-38, 42-47, 58, 60-64, 70-76, 100, 105
Piaget, J., 12-16, 21, 26-30, 33-34, 62, 66-67, 101, III
Play item choices, 3-4, 38-43, 45-47, 67-103, 105, 116-118
Polanyi, M., 16, 96
Research hypotheses, 44-47
Research variables, summary list, 43
Riley, M.W., 37
Robertson, T.S., 4, 90, 95-97
Sample, 6-9, 89-90
Schramm, W., 76, 85, 86
Scott, W.A., 110
Sheffield, F.D., 97, 104
Sibling influence, 30-33, 36, 42-45, 58-61, 63-64, 105, 112
Siegel, S., 116
Social policy, 2, 14, 92-93, 100-103
Spencer, L., 13
Steiner, G.H., 1
Susceptibility to commercials, children's, 2-5, 46-47, 57-59, 68-103
Swartz E .M. 3
1 I
Television commercials:
general, 1-3, 12-24, 31-32, 57, 59, 66, 85, 90, 92-93, 96-103
toy and game, 3-4, 20-24, 71-103
Television exposure, 2, 30, 34-35, 43-47, 57-67, 70-78, 81-88,
90, 93-94, 99-100, 101-102, 104-105, 111-112, 116-118
Torney, J.V., 31
Toy Manufacturers of America, 91
Tull, D.S., 113, 115
Tv-toys and games, 3-4, 20-24, 38-42, 45-47, 67-91, 94-97, 99,
102-103, 116-118
Wackman, D., 85, 97, III
Ward, S., 1, 13, 16, 29, 85, 97, III
Weiss, W., 3, 32
Wharton School, 4, 9
Winick, C., 1, III
Winick, M.P. 1
1
Williamson, L.G., 1
Wood, A.J., Research Corporation, 91
vi
INDEX/CONT.
worth, S., 92
Wright, C.R., 13, 102, 112
Zaporozhets, A.V., 101
Zinchenko, V.P., 101
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. THE RESEARCH PROBLEM ...........................•.............. 1
1. Television Advertising and Children 1
2. The Present Study: Overview 4
B. RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURE ......•••.•••••.••.••••.••••••••. 6
1. Research Design 6
2. Sample 6
3. Interview Methodology 9
C. VARIABLES AND MEASUREMENT .......•......•.....................• 12
1. The Cognition-Attitude Model 12
2. Predictor Variables 26
3. Behavioral variables 37
D. HYPOTHESES. • •• • . • . • • • • . • . • • . . . . . • • . • . • . • • • . • • • . • • • • . • • . • • . . . • • 44
1. Test of the Model 44
2. Predictors of Cognition and Attitude 44
3. Behavioral Effects 45
E. RESULTS. . . . . . . . • • • . . . • . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . • . • . . . . • . . . . . . 48
1. Sequential Acquisition of Cognitive Concepts 48
2. Cognition and Attitude 53
3. Specific Predictors of Cognition and Attitude 57
4. Relative Contributions of Developmental,
Experiential, and Socialization Factors 62
viii